English for Security Audits

Security audits bring together developers, security engineers, and sometimes external consultants in high-pressure conversations where precision matters enormously. A misunderstood term or poorly phrased question can lead to genuine confusion — or worse, a missed vulnerability. For non-native English speakers working in security-adjacent roles, fluency in audit vocabulary is not optional; it is essential.

---

Key Vocabulary

Penetration testing (pen test) — an authorised simulated attack on a system to find security weaknesses before malicious actors do. “The third-party pen test flagged three critical vulnerabilities in our API layer.”

Vulnerability — a weakness in a system that could be exploited by an attacker. “We have an unpatched vulnerability in the session management module — it needs to be addressed before the release.”

Exploit — a technique or piece of code that takes advantage of a vulnerability. “The audit found an exploit path that allows privilege escalation without authentication.”

Remediation — the process of fixing or mitigating a security issue. “The remediation for this finding involves rotating the API keys and restricting endpoint access by IP.”

Attack surface — the total set of points where an attacker could try to enter or extract data from a system. “Every new integration we add increases our attack surface — we need to assess the risk before committing.”

Threat model — a structured analysis of who might attack your system, what they want, and how they might try to get it. “We ran a threat modelling session last quarter, but it predates the new payment flow — we should revisit it.”

Finding — a result identified during an audit, ranging from informational to critical. “The audit report lists twelve findings — two critical, four high, and six medium.”

---

Phrases for Audit Kick-off Meetings

Security audits typically begin with a scoping and kick-off meeting. These phrases help you contribute clearly:

• “Can you walk us through the scope of the audit — what systems and environments are in scope?”
• “Are there any systems explicitly out of scope that we should be aware of?”
• “What threat actors are we modelling against — opportunistic attackers, or targeted advanced persistent threats?”
• “What is the timeline for the audit, and when can we expect the preliminary findings?”
• “Who is the point of contact on our side for questions during the audit period?”

---

Phrases for Discussing Vulnerabilities

When vulnerabilities are identified, the language you use shapes how the team prioritises and responds:

• “The finding is a stored XSS vulnerability — an attacker could inject malicious scripts into the user profile page.”
• “This is rated critical because it is exploitable without authentication and affects all users.”
• “The CVSS score is 9.1 — we should treat this as an immediate remediation priority.”
• “Is this exploitable in our production environment, or only under specific conditions?”
• “Can you share the proof of concept so our team can reproduce it internally?”

CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) is the industry-standard method for rating the severity of security vulnerabilities on a scale from 0 to 10. Knowing this term is essential in audit conversations.

---

Phrases for Remediation Planning

After findings are identified, teams discuss how and when to fix them:

• “For the critical findings, we’re targeting a 72-hour remediation window.”
• “The remediation for this requires a code change and a config update — we estimate two days of work.”
• “We’re proposing a compensating control in the short term while we plan the full remediation.”
• “Can we get a re-test of this finding once the fix is deployed?”
• “We need to prioritise the findings by exploitability and impact, not just severity score.”

A compensating control is a workaround measure put in place when the ideal fix is not immediately feasible — for example, blocking an endpoint by IP while the underlying code vulnerability is fixed.

---

Phrases for Responding to External Auditors

External auditors expect professional, measured responses. Avoid panic and vague statements:

• “Thank you for flagging this — we’ll investigate and respond within the agreed SLA.”
• “We were aware of this risk and have a mitigation in place — let me share the details.”
• “This finding is noted. We’ll include it in our remediation plan and provide an update at the next checkpoint.”
• “Can you clarify the severity rating? I want to understand what assumptions were made about the attacker’s access level.”
• “We dispute the severity of this finding — in our environment, it requires authenticated access, which changes the risk profile significantly.”

---

Phrases to Avoid

Avoid	Try instead
“That can’t be hacked.”	“We have controls in place — let me walk you through them.”
“Nobody would bother attacking us.”	“Our threat model doesn’t currently include that actor — should we revise it?”
“That’s a false positive.”	“We believe this may be a false positive — here’s our reasoning.”
“We’ll fix it eventually.”	“We’re targeting remediation in the next sprint — the ticket is already raised.”

---

Quick Reference

Situation	Phrase
Scoping the audit	“What systems are in and out of scope?”
Responding to a critical finding	“We’re targeting 72-hour remediation for critical issues.”
Asking about exploitability	“Is this exploitable without authentication?”
Proposing interim fix	“We’ll implement a compensating control in the short term.”
Challenging severity	“We believe the risk profile differs in our environment.”
Requesting a re-test	“Can we get a re-test once the fix is deployed?”

Security audits are ultimately about trust — trust between your team, your stakeholders, and sometimes regulators. Communicating clearly and precisely during these conversations is a professional skill that is just as important as the technical knowledge underneath it.

Navigating Disagreement with Grace – and Precise Language

Let’s be honest: disagreements are inevitable in software development. A different approach is proposed, a subtle misunderstanding surfaces, or simply differing opinions on the best way forward. The key isn’t to avoid these moments but to handle them constructively, using language that clarifies intent and promotes collaboration. It’s about shifting from purely reactive responses – “That’s wrong!” – to proactive communication focused on understanding and finding a mutually agreeable solution.

One common situation arises during code reviews. Imagine receiving this comment: “This function is unclear; could be better documented.” While well-intentioned, it’s vague. A stronger response would acknowledge the reviewer’s concern but request specifics. Instead of simply saying “Okay,” you might reply with something like, “Thanks for pointing that out. Could you elaborate on what specifically makes the documentation unclear? Is there a particular aspect missing, or could the existing documentation be restructured?” This shifts the conversation from a subjective judgment to a concrete problem needing resolution.

Similarly, consider crafting a Pull Request (PR) description. A brief “Fixes bug” is rarely sufficient. Instead, aim for clarity and context. “This PR addresses issue #123 – user login failure due to incorrect validation logic. The updated code implements robust input sanitization and error handling, ensuring data integrity during the authentication process. I’ve added detailed comments explaining the changes and included unit tests to verify functionality.” Notice the inclusion of the bug number (linking back to a ticket) and a clear explanation of why the change was made.

Finally, even in casual workplace communication – like a Slack message – precision matters. Receiving a notification saying “Something’s not right with this,” is frustratingly unhelpful. A more productive response would be: “Could you clarify what specifically isn’t working as expected? Providing details about the observed behavior or any error messages will help me troubleshoot effectively.” The goal isn’t to immediately correct someone, but to establish a shared understanding of the problem and move towards a solution together. Using phrases like “as expected,” “observed behavior,” and explicitly requesting more information demonstrates professionalism and fosters a collaborative environment.